The US war in Iraq has lasted longer than the US war against Germany in WWII. If it lasts past the Saturday after Thanksgiving, it will have lasted longer than our war against Japan in WWII.
Of course, the US has had longer wars, and the number of troops involved is lower for Iraq. And we haven't mobilized our economy toward the effort to the extent we did during WWII or the Civil War.
Maybe if we compared wars based on person-years of fighting? Or percent of GNP devoted to the war effort.
Anyone seen any figures like that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The GNP statistic would probably be a bit skewed, because for WWII it would not figure a reasonable weekly wage for all those conscripts. If they'd been working and making stuff, GNP would be a lot higher; but this kind of opportunity cost is very difficult to account for. While in Iraq, on the other hand, you have a professional army getting paid what they're worth (one assumes). So any 'percentage of GNP' figure would be biased to counting Iraq as relatively more expensive, unless you were careful.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not clear on what the value is in the comparison.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Just interested.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
When did we pull out of Germany and Japan?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
How many post VE and VJ casualties did we take?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
How man Pre-VE and Pre-VJ casulaties did we take?
Or must we take our casualties up front, or not at all?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We've lost roughly 5,000 people in this war so far. 60% of whom died in one day in september of 2001.
Here are some WW II casualty stats that will make your heart stop.
We lost over 400,000 people out of a population less than half our current size. Imagine losing san francisco and then throwing in Des Moines for good measure.
Now look at the Soviet losses. It's enough to make an Atheist pray.
You want to compare wars, let's compare wars...
Pix
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: We've lost roughly 5,000 people in this war so far. 60% of whom died in one day in september of 2001.
Since when were the people who died on 9/11 victims of the war in Iraq?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tarrsk: The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it has become part of the war on terror, in some part because of the poor post attack planning and execution. It started out as a part of the Neo-Con agenda that was inaccurately - and in some degree dishonestly - sold as part of the war on terror.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
aka 'the war with no specific enemy'.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, rather than playing a "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" game, I will reduce the casualty numbers.
So 1000? 1500? Americans have died in the actual war in Iraq compared with over 400,000 in WWII.
Feel better?
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
2656 officially confirmed U.S. soldier deaths, according to the DoD.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Don't include 9/11 deaths in the Iraqi war casualty tally. It's completely unsupportable.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
This is pleasant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think Pixiest shows rather nicely that there's really no point in comparing a colonial war to a full-dress struggle for world hegemony with two Great Powers at the peak of their strength. How if we looked at some conflicts of the same type? Vietnam, Korea, the various Latin American interventions, Gulf War I?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Okay, let's take Japan.
We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Three days later, the Soviets broke their neutrality pact and invaded Manchuria. A little later in the day we bombed Nagasaki.
On the 14th, they accepted the terms of surrender.
September 2nd, 1945 was VJ day. Within two weeks the allied occupation of Japan began.
Now, there was still fighting for a while. It wasn't until the spring of '46 for all major units to lay down their arms.
But officially, it was still a peaceful occupation. History considers it that way.
So guess when representatives from 52 countries met to start drawing up the terms of the peace treaty? If the war with Japan was won when all major units stopped fighting in the spring of '46, how long did the peaceful occupation last?
The Treaty of San Francisco was signed on September 8, 1951. Five and a half years later. The terms took effect on April 28th, 1952, which is usually considered the end of the official US occupation. But of course, we still have troops in Japan to this day--part of the peace treaties was that the US could keep its bases there.
So in Japan, we had four years of unfettered fighting lead into six months of limbo into five years of stable occupation.
Now, in this war, we've managed to circumvent the four years of unfettered fighting that resulted in hundreds of thousands of death, but we're dealing with an unstable occupation that includes so-called "insurgents" who actually seem to be a multi-national "force" (While some would try to convince us the war in Iraq is separate from the war on Terror, somebody forgot to convince Al-Quaida of that, since they seem to be willing to show up to fight for their side).
But it seems that because this occupation is far more difficult than that one, that somehow this means we should spend less time there.
We can't even measure the cost of this war in tens of thousands yet, but we're still going on about how wrong every death is, as if war had somehow become something that didn't involve death, that didn't involve sacrifice. ________________________
Here's the point I'm trying to make.
Either the cause is worthy of our time and sacrifice, or it's not. Either the cause is worthy of the lives of our sons, or it's not.
Discuss the reasons for the war, discuss the strategy, discuss what we can do differently. Argue with me, disagree with me, passionately convince me that I'm wrong.
But statistics of time and casualties and cost--these do not persuade, nor should they. We already said we were willing to sacrifice because our cause was just. When we called it war and got out our guns we already said we were willing to let our children die.
If our cause is unjust, it is the motivations, not the number of months or deaths involved that make it so--if our cause is just, then that is the reason for our sacrifice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, it has become part of the war on terror, in some part because of the poor post attack planning and execution. It started out as a part of the Neo-Con agenda that was inaccurately - and in some degree dishonestly - sold as part of the war on terror.
Seeing as how the 'War on Terror' is not very precisely defined, I'm not sure how exactly you can be so precise in excluding Iraq from it, Mr. Squicky.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just what we need, a generational "Mine is bigger than yours" contest.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
squick: is that Iraq alone or are you including afganistan?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Not that this has anything to do with this thread, but does anyone have the statistic
1 out of ____ men (army prefferably) died in WWII. It'd be really useful for a family newsletter (I had a grandpa and 5 great uncles just from my dad's paternal side in WWII).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...for what it's worth, my original question was sparked by a desire to come up with a reasonable way TO compare different conflicts. Somewhere (it's not important) I ran across the factoid that the Iraq war had lasted longer than our involvement in the European theater conflict portion of WWII and that it would soon be longer than the war with Japan. I thought it was interesting, but not very meaningful as a comparison.
I think people seem to jump to all sorts of weird and unwarranted conclusions whenver stuff like this comes up. I assure you, my interest is only in seeing if there is a valid comparison and on what basis one would compare conflicts...
So calm down!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, It can by using the reasons why the Bush administration has used for including it into the war on terror and the timing for both the push and decision to go to war there.
There was no link to 9/11, no link ot al Queda, no links to terrorism other than sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There appear to have been no WMDs save remnants from the 80s and no active programs to procure or hide WMDs.
Then there is the idea that it's part of the war on terror because "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". The essence of this may be true now, but it clearly wasn't at the start of the Iraqi War.
Finally, the formulation by key members of this administration of the policy that invading Iraq should be one of the first things done in the event that it could be sold to the public predated the war on terror. Also, based on things such as the Downing Street Memos, we now know that the decision to invade was made very soon after 9/11, before a determination of whether was a part of the attacks or affiliated with any terrorists threatening us.
It served the purpose of this administration to link Iraq with terrorism, 9/11, and al Queda, but none of these were true.
---
I have no idea what purpose making comparisons of these sorts between this war and others serves. Simple number to number comparisons are irreparably confounded by the immense differences between this and nearly all the things people try to compare it to. In the ways I've seen it done, there's no point other than to serve as a flimsy support for whatever you go in with.
[ September 06, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pixiest, That's the official count from Iraq alone. It's not difficult to find.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
I believe that rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers for murdering Israelis was reason enough alone to go to war. It also makes the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein an open and public ally to murderous terrorism against one of our allies.
Seems like a pretty clear case of cassus belli to me. Then again, there are those who believe that sponsoring terrorism against an ally-if it's Israel-isn't sufficient reason to go to war. Personally I believe that's an indicator that we're already at war with that party.
Questions of the actual reasons used and publicized for going to war with Iraq by this Administration (and Congress) are valid, and for what it's worth I share some but not all of your concerns. I am now and was then dismayed and disgusted by the Bush Administration's unwillingness to attack Iraq without simply finding (or manufacturing, some would say) other reasons.
I am dismayed and disgusted because there was always a chance that their information was wrong, which leads us to where we are now: at odds with many allies on this issue, allies who could-although whether or not they would, such as the current French-Lebanese example is unclear-help us.
If we had stuck to Iraq on its own merits-open ally and material supporter of terrorists, previous public history of aggressive warfare, constant violations of rules ending the previous war, and an unwillingness to prove-as he was required to-that his nation was not arming or beginning to arm with WMDs-if we had stuck to those things, we would not be in the position we are now.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This type of comparison, if done on a valid basis, would serve at least one useful purpose that I can think of. Maybe two.
1) It would give people an opportunity to put the war in context of our past experience with war. If this war is no bigger and much less costly or dangerous (to our troops) than prior wars, it's good to know that. People can then do a sort of mental calculus comparing the objectives of this war to those achieved (or not achieved) in past wars. It's not the ONLY perspective from which to evaluate a war, of course, but it is one that shouldn't just be ignored. Sort of a "how does this war fit in relation to our past experiences?" I believe such comparisons, if done with sensitivity to the potential flaws, could be useful because it might give people a context for deciding if this war was really worth it or was way over the top. As I said, this shouldn't be the only datum, but it seems at least possibly relevant.
2) Another possibility that could arise from such comparisons is that people might gain knowledge of how horrifically costly (in dollars and lives) the prior wars were. To me, keeping such statistics "alive" in the minds of people in each successive generation is important because we humans tend to glorify the past and it gets some to wish for the same sorts of opportunities today. Who wouldn't want to be part of The Greatest Generation? But war should not be glorified. It is evidence of so much that has broken. Maybe showing what the cost of REAL world war would be in today's dollars will help reinforce a desire to avoid it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rewarding after the fact the family of suicide bombers against another sovereign power, even a close ally, is at best a tentative cause for war, even back when war was considerably more common. For one thing, the families of the suicide bombers have quite possibly done nothing wrong. Providing incentives for suicide bombers before the fact would be closer, but even then we wouldn't go to war over it in the olden days, we'd just have gone to war if Israel went to war. Additionally, its tricky because it was Saddam doing the awarding, and while he's the ruler, his actions are not always the actions of the state; there are plenty of states where prominent, powerful citizens have given similar support.
Not to mention that if we use that as justification we make it look like we'll go to war over extremely small things (which that is in world politics, like it or not), and make the world even more nervous than it is. At least because we had all the made-up reasons the world just thinks we were stupid and a little headstrong, not a rampaging bull who saw someone wave a distracting flag.
There were reasons to go to war in Iraq, but that's a horribly bad one.
A previous public history of aggressive warfare applies to almost every state on earth if we go back a couple hundred years (or considerably less, in most cases). If we're going to war we at least need to phrase the reason in a way that doesn't make everyone attackable.
We already had good intelligence that Saddam's officials would regularly lie to him, and that the organization of his government was atrocious. Nobody knew what Iraq's WMD capabilities were for sure, and nobody could prove to us they didn't exist because they didn't know enough. Also, we now know that Saddam was on the whole rather cooperative with the inspectors, it just felt otherwise because he was taunting us by prolonging and minorly confounding the inspectors. We reacted more than he expected, but he wanted a reaction. Going after every gnat that bites us is an extremely bad policy. It turned out that even the strong threat of war was enough to get Saddam to comply with inspection -- remember, the inspectors had returned been able to return to the task and were working mostly unhindered until they had to leave to avoid being trapped in a warzone.
Most of the violations of the agreement are cases of being a gnat, but they are both an overall better reason for going to war due to being by nature a proportional response (though under traditional practice of war invasion might be considered a bit much, but there are precedents), and one that he didn't seem about to end (unlike the inspectors, who had just gotten back on track to resolving things for a good long while, at least).
The big thing that makes the world sit up and take notice of Iraq is, that except for thumbing its nose at us a lot, Iraq has on the whole been on a similar level to other dictatorial regimes such as Pakistan (not that this is a good level to be at). Any decent justification should be based as much as possible on a set of qualities inapplicable to any but the most unsavory nations, so as to prove to the world and ourselves that we're not just attacking because Iraq aggravates us.
Treaty violations are a good place to start (though it would have been nice if we had written some big requirements on creating a civil society in Iraq, then we would have had really nice leverage). Other decent areas to talk about are threats to the stability of the region, provided we can articulate what constitutes such fairly explicitly.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rewarding after the fact the family of suicide bombers against another sovereign power, even a close ally, is at best a tentative cause for war, even back when war was considerably more common. For one thing, the families of the suicide bombers have quite possibly done nothing wrong. Providing incentives for suicide bombers before the fact would be closer, but even then we wouldn't go to war over it in the olden days, we'd just have gone to war if Israel went to war. Additionally, its tricky because it was Saddam doing the awarding, and while he's the ruler, his actions are not always the actions of the state; there are plenty of states where prominent, powerful citizens have given similar support.
Including our ally, Saudia Arabia, where according to Maureen Dowd there were telethons for the families of suicide bombers, on which shows high-ranking members of the ruling house of Saud publicly pledged donations.
A better comedy writer than I could write a great parody of such a telethon, but mine would be more offensive than funny so I'll just imagine it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
fugu,
I agree with you about how going to war over such a thing would be perceived. I'm speaking for personal belief here.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
It is so easy to lose perspective on the war. In fact, some of the posts here make it clear that some have forgotten how it started in the in the first place. I found an excellent essay that sums up my recollections in last night's Time magazine Here This war was not without justifications. The President just elected to pick an invalid reason to "sell" it to the people. His timing was also suspect. And a successful outcome is not an unreasonable expectation. But, again, the President has not chosen to recognize or artictulate a reasonable outcome. Nor, has he been willing to provide the leadership to that end. On the day the war started, in a discussion with my wife who was strongly aganst the war, I expressed my doubts, not in the war itself but in the administration who apparently had no "end game" in mind. I feel even more strongly now that the whole affair has suffered from their falure to lead. We don't need an "anti war" President. But, we do need a competent one.
[ September 07, 2006, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
I didn't have much time before, so I'll explain what I meant a little more now.
I shouldn't have used the term cassus belli, among its other definitions is a literal internationall-accepted sufficient provocation for war. Or at least, I should have been more specific: I believe that rewarding suicide bombers of our allies is, in itself, an act of war against our ally and depending on how close we are to the ally in terms of friendship, against us as well.
In practical terms, if you begin a policy of rewardinng the families of suicide bombers long enough, I believe that is incentive before the fact. It's just another reason to become a suicide bomber. It's the same reason suicide ain't covered much in life-insurance policies.
quote:Additionally, its tricky because it was Saddam doing the awarding, and while he's the ruler, his actions are not always the actions of the state; there are plenty of states where prominent, powerful citizens have given similar support.
Whether or not he did it in his capacity as dictator of Iraq is irrelevant to me-again speaking personally here. He was the government of Iraq, for most intents and purposes for one thing.
quote:A previous public history of aggressive warfare applies to almost every state on earth if we go back a couple hundred years (or considerably less, in most cases). If we're going to war we at least need to phrase the reason in a way that doesn't make everyone attackable.
True. A recent history of aggressive warfare, for which adequate compensation and 'apologies' have not been made would be better.
quote:Also, we now know that Saddam was on the whole rather cooperative with the inspectors, it just felt otherwise because he was taunting us by prolonging and minorly confounding the inspectors. We reacted more than he expected, but he wanted a reaction. Going after every gnat that bites us is an extremely bad policy. It turned out that even the strong threat of war was enough to get Saddam to comply with inspection -- remember, the inspectors had returned been able to return to the task and were working mostly unhindered until they had to leave to avoid being trapped in a warzone.
Hindsight is 20/20. No one has ever explained adequately to me why, under the circumstances, taunting and prolonging and confounding the weapons inspectors at all at the time shouldn't have been a gigantic red flag, or why it makes sense to have taken into account, "He may be screwing with us."
quote:Treaty violations are a good place to start (though it would have been nice if we had written some big requirements on creating a civil society in Iraq, then we would have had really nice leverage). Other decent areas to talk about are threats to the stability of the region, provided we can articulate what constitutes such fairly explicitly.
I completely agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I wasn't talking about whether the war could be justified on some grounds. I'm entirely convinced that it could have been. This isn't something I've ever disuputed. I was a staunch supporter of the war until I learned of the massive deception pulled against myself, the American public, and the rest of the world. Even now, I'm convinced the U.S. was legally justified in invading Iraq.
I'm saying that it didn't, at its inception, fit under the heading of war on terror. That was just part of the snowjob the administration pulled on us. That it is now part of the war on terror is testament to their failure in dealing with the post-attack situation.
---
You used a term incorrectly up there. Giving money to the families of suicide bombers is not "material support" of terrorists. As far as we know, Saddam provided no money or other assistence for the bombers to carry out their attacks. That's the definition of material support. You could make the argument that him joining with many, many other people in taking care of the families of suicide bombers contributed to a culture that induced people into the bombings, but that doesn't constitute material support.
Nor does it, to me, indicate any sort of threat to the United States, which was why we were told invading was so vital.
---
edit: As I said, there were plenty of adequate legal justifications for attacking Iraq. However, as I've said many times on this issue and others, having the right to do something and it being a good or responsible idea are often two very different things.
WMDs and links to terrorism were very shaky justifications for war but they had one effect that most of the other more solid justifications lacked. They made Iraq look like a threat. They made invasion seem not just like a good move, but a necessary one.
Take them away and, yes, you've still got a strong legal case for the attacks. However, at that time, with those people, the response from many people (myself included) to the legally justified case would have been "What the crap are you thinking? That's a terrible idea."
And I'm someone who is sympathetic to the neo-con idea of "spreading democracy" as a partial solution to many geo-political problems.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, let me clarify even further then. I'm not speaking in legalese here, I'm not talking about what international laws and standards dictate. When I say something like, "Saddam Hussein gave material support to suicide bombers against Israel," I mean he gave money or material that aided their cause.
Rewarding their families, thus making it easier for the suicide bombers themselves to engage in their murder, and helping to persuade others to join by glorifying it, falls to me under that category.
Nor do I think-and I realize you are not saying this-that threats against the United States are the only reasons we should go to war.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hindsight is 20/20, but in this case most nations other than us, the UN, and the inspectors themselves had pretty darn good foresight, so its not a great excuse that we didn't. They were all yelling at us to wait on more feedback on the inspectors now that they had been allowed back in and given significantly more powers.
We knew he was screwing with us, and it was darn annoying, but I strongly hope that the line between extreme annoyance and invasion is a broad one. We need reasons that reflect our responsibility to act commensurately with the impact of our actions.
I do hear you on the 'personally' issue. In an ideal world, there are lots of states (and lots of things in our own country) that would not exist, that we could root out. We're so far from that, though, that I have a hard time talking in terms of "here's what I think is enough to go to war" without including the context of international politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Hindsight is 20/20, but in this case most nations other than us, the UN, and the inspectors themselves had pretty darn good foresight, so its not a great excuse that we didn't. They were all yelling at us to wait on more feedback on the inspectors now that they had been allowed back in and given significantly more powers.
Sure they were yelling at us. Although I don't think they thought it trivial that we were the primary target of terrorist attacks-particularly with WMD-it was not the UN or the European community whose butt was on the line, it was us.
Furthermore, people whose job it is to avoid war-such as the UN and (in this case) weapons inspectors are more likely to have a much higher standard for justification for war than others whose standard is lower. I do not think that means they should be adhered to in every case, though.
'Annoying' depends on the context. We can be 'annoyed' by Chavez, and we can be 'annoyed' by Castro, and we can be 'annoyed' by North Korea. In all cases the current level of threat may be relatively low, but the margin between 'annoyance' and 'legitimate threat' is much, much smaller.
As for international politics...I realize they're necessary, and I realize they're what we have to deal with. But much, much more than domestic politics within the United States, 'international politics' seems to be more about maintaining the status quo and maintaining order than what is actually good and/or right. That's why even though I recognize those things are important, they're not in my perspective primary motivators.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Iraq had never launched an attack against us with WMD, we had no evidence they had or would be remotely likely to provide WMD to terrorists, and I rather think Iran and Kuwait would be far higher on their list of places to attack with WMD than the US. Our butt was no more on the line than the EU's, particularly in the short term required to finish the round of inspections. Even if the worst of our intelligence predictions were true we were in no near-term danger from Iraqi WMD, the only people saying that were those dealing in political hype.
I think doing what is right is extremely important. But I can list dozens of countries, including the US, doing very wrong things that should not be done. The question is not whether or not what Iraq (or the US, or Russia, or Pakistan, et cetera) was/is doing was/is wrong, or bad, but whether or not it is sufficient motivation to invade, which cannot be answered without consideration of what it means to act (or specifically, invade) responsibly -- a consideration that must minimally include a clear statement of reasons, effective planning for anticipated post-invasion situations and contingencies, and a commitment to take responsibility for the new nation.
Note that this doesn't mean we can't do things over the wishes of the international community -- nothing in what I said states that. However, when we're acting without significant international support our responsibility to act with clarity and dedication is all the more important, two important measures the Bush administration failed miserably at, and which I feel an invasion motivated by payments to suicide bombers would not accomodate.
Every state on this planet is doing or has done things that are wrong or bad. The US is doing some now. Imagine some country whose citizens we have abducted, had tortured, and then discovered were not merely innocent but clearly innocent is more powerful than the US. We have done something very wrong to this country, and perhaps even in this new world we refuse to stop. Temporarily ignoring the nuclear issue, is it not incumbent on that country to not invade (despite what's actually a pretty clear cause for war in international legal terms) because preserving the order (and avoiding an utterly devastating conventional war) is more important than correcting the wrong? Right now the only difference in scenario is no country whose citizens we've done that to has the force available to invade us.
I think things do tend to fall too far in the direction of stability. One of my positions is that there is too little war in Africa. We use aid payments to prop up dictatorships in the name of stability (even when dictatorships are not skimming from humanitarian aid, the aid does stabilize their regime somewhat), when absent support many of those dictatorships would likely be toppled.
Of course, the situation is not nearly even that simple, since part of the reason for the aid payments is to disincentivize dictatorships from allying with distasteful countries like Iran, Russia, or China in order to obtain support.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sure they were yelling at us. Although I don't think they thought it trivial that we were the primary target of terrorist attacks-particularly with WMD-it was not the UN or the European community whose butt was on the line, it was us.
Since 9/11 there have been major terrorist attacks on Bali (primarily on Australian tourists) and the London terrorist bombings. I don't think that the idea that the U.S. is the primary target of terrorism colors other countries' perceptions anywhere near as much as it does ours.
And, as fugu pointed out, our butts were clearly not on the line in regards to Iraq.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
squick: actually they thought they austrialians in Bali were Americans, from what I understand.
And they went after London y Madrid because they were perceived to be our lapdogs. They actually succeeded in changing the spanish government to one less friendly to the US with that attack.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, Do you have a connection with the terrorists? I'm not sure how you would know some of these things otherwise.
Some sources might help me figure out where you are coming from though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
quote:Iraq had never launched an attack against us with WMD, we had no evidence they had or would be remotely likely to provide WMD to terrorists, and I rather think Iran and Kuwait would be far higher on their list of places to attack with WMD than the US. Our butt was no more on the line than the EU's, particularly in the short term required to finish the round of inspections. Even if the worst of our intelligence predictions were true we were in no near-term danger from Iraqi WMD, the only people saying that were those dealing in political hype.
Iran and Kuwait would certainly be more likely targets for them to attack openly. Perhaps not so covertly with any WMD. I disagree about your statements concerning the EU. I believe we are far more hated than the European community by Islamic-fascists in general and by Saddam Hussein in particular. While by appearances the short-term was not dangerous to us, I think we were at the time more than understandably concerned about delaying for the sake of 'the short-term'.
quote:However, when we're acting without significant international support our responsibility to act with clarity and dedication is all the more important, two important measures the Bush administration failed miserably at, and which I feel an invasion motivated by payments to suicide bombers would not accomodate.
I agree with the first. I'm uncertain why you're focusing on the second, however. I have already admitted that by international standards, rewarding and supporting suicide bombers against an ally is not sufficient cause.
quote:Right now the only difference in scenario is no country whose citizens we've done that to has the force available to invade us.
That's true. I don't exempt the United States from this kind of moral judgement. We lack the kind of clear-cut choice between us and the Soviet Union for world dominance. We should not be doing many of the things we're doing-what support I have left for the Bush Administration erodes even further everytime I hear more about things like "trust us, it's tough but humane treatment at our formerly secret CIA prisons in foreign nations, where torture is perhaps allowable."
quote:One of my positions is that there is too little war in Africa.
Couldn't agree more.
quote:Since 9/11 there have been major terrorist attacks on Bali (primarily on Australian tourists) and the London terrorist bombings. I don't think that the idea that the U.S. is the primary target of terrorism colors other countries' perceptions anywhere near as much as it does ours.
The operative word in that paragraph is 'since'.
It is essentially a matter of guesswork as to who would have been the most likely target of a covert WMD strike from Iraq. The most that can be done with any degree of certainty is to put people OFF the list. Most of Europe certainly falls off that list.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is essentially a matter of guesswork as to who would have been the most likely target of a covert WMD strike from Iraq. The most that can be done with any degree of certainty is to put people OFF the list. Most of Europe certainly falls off that list.
I don't see why that would be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because Saddam Hussein didn't keep tables of his most hated enemies lying around? I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, Mr. Squicky-I don't mean that to be snarky either, it just seems obvious to me.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
According to the linked casualty listing from WWII, Japan had 2,000,000 military and 600,000 civilian deaths.
That doesn't sit easy with me.
Hiroshima: 140,000 Nagasaki: 74,000 Tokyo Firebombing: 100,000
Total fatalities for just those three incidents: 314,000
I don't know how many of those casualties were military, but considering how non-discriminatory the methods of attack were, I can't imagine its more than a small percentage.
So that's about half of the supposed total civilian casualties right there. From Wikipedia:
quote:By June, over forty percent of the urban area of Japan's largest six cities (Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe, Osaka, Yokohama, and Kawasaki) was devastated. LeMay's fleet of nearly 600 bombers destroyed tens of smaller cities and manufacturing centers in the following weeks and months.
I'd imagine there were hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in these cities as well.
Hard for me to get the numbers to match up in my head.
[ September 07, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Furthermore, people whose job it is to avoid war-such as the UN and (in this case) weapons inspectors are more likely to have a much higher standard for justification for war than others whose standard is lower.
One lesson we should take from this is that we should elect leaders who, like the U.N., also consider it part of their job to avoid war - not leaders who think of war as a tool in the toolbox that we can impose on other nations whenever we think it may help our needs in the long run.
Little about the results of this war was unpredictable. I said myself beforehand that we shouldn't conclude Iraq has WMDs utnil inspectors say we have proof, that we'd come out as the bad guys if we went in unilaterally without solid justification, that we'd incite more terrorism than we'd stop with any invasion, that there was a strong chance of civil war if we invaded, and that we'd probably just be doing Al Qaeda a service by taking their enemies out of power in Iraq so terrorists could move in an take control. How can these things have been apparent to us beforehand, yet overlooked by those in power who are supposed to know what they are doing?
I think the answer is that the Bush administration has viewed all of the same information under the light of mistaken assumptions. They have assumed that we can and should shape the world according to our own design with our military and economic might. They have assumed that it is possible to make ourselves secure from enemies. They have assumed the terrorists are motived only by evil, and not by anything we may have done to provoke them. And they have attempted to force all other data to fit these assumptions, rejecting any that differs from it. As long our leadership leads based on such assumptions, we will continue to get ourselves into more conflicts and find ourselves more and more under threat. Until we change the way we think, until we begin to approach the international community as peers rather than children to guide, and until we begin to see why it is so critical that we do the right thing rather than engage in whatever means we think will achieve the desired ends, we are going to be in trouble. So, in my view, the big question about the Iraq War is this: Did we really learn our lesson? Or have we instead merely convinced ourselves it was some fluke that caused this not to work as planned - that it was just poor planning by Bush, or poor execution, or poor information-gathering - that it will work better next time?
I suspect many people believe is the latter, and that's what worries me the most. It is entirely possible, I think, that we will decide to touch the hot stove yet again, and will yet again wonder afterwards why it keeps burning us whenever we do so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Under the hypothetical situation that we now know is false, Saddam would funnel WMDs to non-Iraq controlled terrorist groups. In that case, I don't see how you can say they wouldn't use them on Europeans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If Saddam giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is a reason for the UNITED STATES to go to war, then I believe we have the most grossly irresponsible President of the last couple centuries.
Either way, I don't think the War in Iraq really compares to anything in recent memory. I also don't think of the War on Terrorism as a real war, any more than I'd compare the War on Drugs to WWII. The war on terror won't be over until there's world peace, and I'm sorry but I refuse to give any president unfettered powers for the next couple hundred years.
America didn't go to war itself in WWI or WWII, despite the fact that our allies were getting womped on, until there was either a direct attack, threat or implication of threat, to the US homeland itself.
Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Even that is a bad example, because there were much bigger threats to us than Iraq, so imagine Albania attacked Britain with kamikaze plans, and our response was to invade Italy. Well, the metaphor doesn't have to be dead on for anyone to get the point. Saddam's crimes might have been bad enough to garner invasion, but there were worse crimes elsewhere that demanded much more attention from us. Israel has shown a willingness in the past to defend themselves more aggressively than any other of our allies, why do they need us attacking Iraq?
FURTHERMORE, if we're going to defend Israel, why the hell did we attack Iraq and not Iran, who actually gives money DIRECTLY TO THE TERROISTS! And supplies them DIRECTLY WITH WEAPONS.
The whole thing boggles the mind and gives me a headache. But I don't see the value in comparing wars, only because I don't think you could ever come up with a system of accurately comparing them in any substantive way. Death for death is one thing, but how do you compare scope? money spent? the effect on the American people? the gains made from the war? the necessity? the cause? and a dozen other things, many of which are subjective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:I don't see how you can say they wouldn't use them on Europeans.
Fortunately I didn't say they wouldn't use them on Europeans. I said that 'most of Europe'. I mean, Saddam Hussein was not known to have much of a problem with northern, eastern, or many other segments of Europe was he? And nor are they the commonly hated targets of Islamic-fascist terrorist groups.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Imagine that Japan was doing a host of other things, small in and of themselves in terms of threat, simultaneously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the only way the fictional scenario of Iraq giving WMDs to external terrorist groups would play out is that Saddam would pick the targets.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Imagine that Japan was doing a host of other things, small in and of themselves in terms of threat, simultaneously.
List them.
And then I'd like to know why we'd attack them, with other larger, looming threats to our country out there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Imagine that Japan was doing a host of other things, small in and of themselves in terms of threat, simultaneously.
List them.
And then I'd like to know why we'd attack them, with other larger, looming threats to our country out there.
First you list the larger bigger threats out there at that time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hussein was in no way an Islamo-fascist (a thing I don't think exists, but I'll accept the term as commonly being understood to refer to a certain subset of Islamic militants), he had a remarkably secular government for many years that only became religious as it was politically expedient to maintain power. For much of his reign Iraqi society was more secular than it is today in much of Iraq.
Hussein certainly hated us, but he'd never done much about it, shown signs of doing anything about it, or anything of the sort. He knew we could take him any time we wanted to, and we continued to dominate significant portions of his country (keeping him from flying in the Kurdish sectors). Furthermore, he was aware of the basic fact that WMDs are traceable; there is no such thing as a covert attack with a WMD. Someone attacks us, we will know where they obtained their weapon(s), and we will retaliate.
We were not understandably concerned for delaying in the short term. Saddam was nowhere near a nuke even if we were right about his capabilities, and he'd had chemical and biological weapons capabilities for decades (if they hadn't been destroyed, and its not like its hard to make more if you know how, have done it before, and have control of a country) and hadn't used them against us yet. He was about as much a near-term threat to us as to the EU not because he didn't hate us more but because he wasn't a near-term threat to either of us at all.
If you want an example of a major potential threat by 'Islamo-fascists', take a look at Pakistan. Nuclear state, history of assisting terrorists extensively, history of illegally disseminating nuclear technology to NK and others, history of stealing nuclear secrets, increasing power by Islamic factions with extreme antipathy towards the US. Oh, and one of our staunchest allies in the region (not because we like them, because we think we need them, and to a certain extent that's true). However, if we're picking candidates for a source of WMDs used in a future terrorist attack, they're probably higher on the list than North Korea, much less a dinky minor-league player like Iraq.
Iraq might not even have made top five on the list of countries most likely to supply (either with the consent of the state or without) WMDs to a terrorist organization. Lets see, say, before 9/11 . . . Pakistan, North Korea, Syria (huge chemical weapons program), Libya (this is pre-capitulation), Iran, Sudan (they threatened Uganda with chemical weapons in '97), Egypt (unlikely by the state, but they have so freakin' many and such a huge terrorist presence some could likely slip out) . . . Yeah, Iraq might be in there before Sudan and Egypt, but unlikely before the other five.
I focus on that because I don't think aiding and abetting terrorism in a smaller way than many states we count as allies is a sufficient standard for us given the reality that there are other states, regardless of whether or not it meets commonly accepted international standards.
Also, Hussein had no network with which to deliver WMDs (even assuming he could generate chemical or biological weapons we couldn't trace; nuclear weapons are incredibly traceable). The best he could have done would be to deliver them to a terrorist group and allow the grou[ to use them, which is extraordinarily unlikely because Hussein had at-best limited relations with Islamic terrorist groups, who generally disliked him for either being heavily partisan against Shiites (for tribal, not religious reasons) and having had extremely secular government.
Any notion that Hussein was remotely likely to use WMDs against the US in the near-term requires a belief that he has had a sudden change of heart about attacking the US (despite generally becoming more acquiescent, such as over the inspections, as threat of war loomed closer) and that he would have cooperated to a far greater extent than ever before with terrorist groups. That change of heart would require several also-implausible steps, like suddenly not thinking we could steamroller his armed forces despite ample evidence to the contrary, or thinking we would lose the ability to trace his biological and chemical weapons.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should re-emphasize that I think an invasion of Iraq was wholly justified, though not for the reasons given by this administration either before or after. However, I think (and have thought since reports of the immediate after-action events) that our post-war planning was abysmal in the extreme, that we have failed Iraq so far in terms of honoring the commitment we made to its people by invading the country, and that we must dramatically increase troop levels and funding in order to fulfill those commitments and make Iraq a stable member of the region.
I'm merely talking about the near-term threat. We could have waited a year or two longer to solidify our case for the war, support for the war (international support being vital for rebuilding Iraqi society), and after-action planning to let us hit the ground running in rebuilding Iraq.
But if you want some larger threats, both Iran and Syria were larger threats to US security than Iraq was .
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I gotta say, I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with fugu on this one.
Even before official debunkment of the WMD claims I was honestly laughing at the assertations that Iraq was threat to the US.
Certainly Sadaam was bad, and things would be better were he (and his cohorts) no longer in power, but there was no immediate cause to attack Iraq just then, and there are still many more targets that are more valid to concentrate on (both for personal protection, and for general threat to their neighbors)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackblade -
Read fugu's post. He says it a lot better than I was planning on. Serious threats to the US abound, and I don't think Iraq seriously played into the top five on that list back in 2003.
Iran, Syria, Libya (at the time), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea. And like fugu I'd tenatively add Egypt and Sudan as well, but possibly on a more even level with Iraq.
That greater threats to the US exist than Iraq was isn't a big surprise is it? Great threats loom even today, but we've tied our own hands with our wretched handling of the Iraq situation. I think I also agree with fugu, and thank him for putting it that way, because it's never clicked in my head before, but I agree that invading Iraq was probably justified, just not the way it was done. If we had gone into Iraq with the kind of force and planning that the first Gulf War entailed, I would've supported it, and continued to support it.
It was poorly handled in the planning stages and the post war execution. And that has nothing to do with intelligence failures, by which I mean to say, it has nothing to do with 20/20 hindsight on WHY we went to war. A successful operation in Iraq could have given us the leverage needed to force Iran's hand, or to fix the problem with Palestine and Israel. But we have no credibility now. Even our closest ally, Blair in the UK, is being ousted. With him gone, who really stands with us? And who is to blame for that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What exactly did the US do that botched everything up? Alot of people point out that we didnt send enough men.
Perhaps thats a valid concern, but what would we have done with the extra man power? They basically patrol around Iraq keeping the peace until a group of guys get brave enough to ambush them, then they eliminate those insurgents. Greater numbers means more money spent, it also means shoddier operations, because there is more to keep track of. We rely on our technology to reduce loses and keep actual men on the ground at a minimum.
But whether we botched our efforts in Iraq is not really what I want to address.
Did Saddam have nuclear capabilities or was he even close. I honestly think the following link to a transcript from 60 minutes2 will prove VERY illuminating. Unless you are convinced the man being interviewed is a liar. But regardless the interview was conducted in 1999. 2 years before the events of 9/11.
Now just realize that this man was already involved in CIA think tanks before we went to Iraq. When 9/11 happened do you think the gov't said "Well thats all the terrorists have got, they've got nothing else to throw at us."
We grossly underestimated Saddams capabilities before operation Dessert Storm. What would Americans have said if Saddam after 9/11 have shown nuclear capabilities. There would have been a panic. Maybe not mass hysteria, but certainly a real scare. We would have screamed at the government for being so irresponsible, and it would have been a nightmare trying to stop Saddam from using the technology.
Certainly you can see why the Bush administration acted so quickly, they have their inteligences officers all over the middle east as well as European inteligence telling them they were right to act quickly. Saddam was refusing entry of all weapon inspectors.
We failed to gauge the danger Al Qaeda posed in 2001, and they were a militant group that was mad that we had military instalations in Saudi Arabia. How much worse could a dictator who was bitter from being defeated, who we underestimated before hurt us?
Now having said that, I agree that perhaps it may be TRUE that Syria, Iran, Libya, etc were bigger threats then Iraq turned out to be, but how could you know that in 2001? Saddam was certainly looking just as dangerous as he did in the 90's. But then again what do I know, I have no idea what the US inteligence people were actually saying to the president.
Suffice to say that the inaction of the Clinton administration seemed like a much worse option then the apparent over zealousness of the Bush administration.
I think you could possibly argue that we were wrong to go to Iraq. But I think there is a VERY good arguement that based on what we know, we were not wrong to think we needed to go.
We can find no evidence of WMD, so either Saddam never had any for more than a decade (which is really a shocker to everybody based on past behavior) or he has simply shipped them out or buried them. But what do I know, I dont have the inteligence.
I just don't like people understating Saddam's nuclear capability both past an present.
Israel seemed pretty concerned about it back in the 70's with osirak, we narrowly avoided catastrophy in the 90's and now in the 2000's suddenly Saddam grins, holds up his hands and says "I've got nothing!"
What are the odds of that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm pretty knackered right now so I can't go much into this except to respond to one statement which permits a brief response.
Mr. Squicky, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein would have had to been given targeting control over any hypothetical (ummm, past hypothetical?) weapons he would've given to terrorists. He would presumably have given them to a group whose aims he was aware of and approved of.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apparently very, very good, Blackblade.
I'm not going to argue the particulars with you. Suffice to say I don't think the pre-war intelligence backs up what you're saying. I'm not talking about hindsight, I'm talking about what we knew then, and what we know now. There was sketchy evidence that he had bio/chemical weapons. There was almost NO evidence that he had anything close to nuclear weapons.
Waiting to go in would have gathered the type of coalition that we had in the first war. We had TWICE as many many in Gulf War I, and that was just to kick them out of Kuwait. I don't see why they think half the amount of men is sufficient for an invasion and occupation. Extra manpower guards the borders so foreign operatives don't get in. Extra manpower secures waste facilities and weapons facilities that we left unguarded (not to mention their natural history museum that we left to looters, great way to win their hearts and minds). Extra manpower means more people out patrolling, blanketing them with power so there isn't as much of a chance to filter in weapons, so we have more people always on the lookout for weapons caches.
And I don't buy that it would much things up. The US has the best professional army on the planet, we've spent billions of dollars and 60 years working on modern warfare. I find it inconcievable that more men would lead to shoddier operations, especially when the generals are calling for more men. They really do know what they are doing.
I don't think you'll ever change your mind though Blackblade, so there's no point in continuing a fruitless debate with you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently very, very good, Blackblade.
I'm not going to argue the particulars with you. Suffice to say I don't think the pre-war intelligence backs up what you're saying. I'm not talking about hindsight, I'm talking about what we knew then, and what we know now. There was sketchy evidence that he had bio/chemical weapons. There was almost NO evidence that he had anything close to nuclear weapons.
Waiting to go in would have gathered the type of coalition that we had in the first war. We had TWICE as many many in Gulf War I, and that was just to kick them out of Kuwait. I don't see why they think half the amount of men is sufficient for an invasion and occupation. Extra manpower guards the borders so foreign operatives don't get in. Extra manpower secures waste facilities and weapons facilities that we left unguarded (not to mention their natural history museum that we left to looters, great way to win their hearts and minds). Extra manpower means more people out patrolling, blanketing them with power so there isn't as much of a chance to filter in weapons, so we have more people always on the lookout for weapons caches.
And I don't buy that it would much things up. The US has the best professional army on the planet, we've spent billions of dollars and 60 years working on modern warfare. I find it inconcievable that more men would lead to shoddier operations, especially when the generals are calling for more men. They really do know what they are doing.
I don't think you'll ever change your mind though Blackblade, so there's no point in continuing a fruitless debate with you.
Your pretty quick to deam the arguement fruitless. I am not so prideful that I cannot change my mind. What I am saying is simple.
I agree there was probably little to no evidence of nuclear bombs in Iraq. I think the administration thought "Well we had little to no evidence last time we were here, we cannot make that mistake again."
I think I do buy your arguement that sending more troops would have been overall more advantageous, but I do not know TOO much about the deployment of troops and all the nuances thereof. But hey you can have that point, and I am not just saying that to prove to you that I CAN change my mind, I do it enough to be progressive, but not enough to be considered spineless. At least I think so
As for waiting for allies, its another arguement for another time. Sufficeth me to say, I do not think we would have gotten ANYONE else to help us out then those who already did help out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Might have, might not have. We have allied troops helping us in Afghanistan. Was it the Germans or the Canadians that took over military command of that country?
But we really didn't give it a chance. And, Saddam DID let a troop of weapons inspectors in with unfettered access. We could have done a better job of supporting the inspectors, they might have eventually told us something. It could have been that it was the inspectors that helped convince allies to help us. It might have been that Middle Eastern allies decided to help us, like in the Gulf War, or the French, or the Germans, or the Italians, or anyone.
We'll never know.
(Sorry I dismissed the discussion earlier).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's really difficult, and possibly fruitless, to compare wars. Differences in scale, differences in munitions, in tactics, in personel, in objective. One can say that far fewer people have been killed on an annual basis in Iraq than in many other wars. But that doesn't bear into account the number of injuries that would have been mortal on earlier battlefields, or the number of civilians killed, among other factors.
I confess I find myself getting a little queasy when people start insisting that the (mounting) sacrifices being made are worthwhile from across an ocean.
quote:Either the cause is worthy of our time and sacrifice, or it's not. Either the cause is worthy of the lives of our sons, or it's not.
My difficulty with this statement is that I don't think the "cause" has remained entirely consistent throughout this engagement. That's more than a political point; it makes it impossible to determine when goals might be defined as achieved or failed or unachievable. If we wanted to prevent the use of WMDs, we've determined, as best we can, that none are presently in the country (barring the possibility that new ones might come in.) If we wanted to neutralize Saddam Hussein, well, his trial isn't done, but I'd wager on Seabiscuit winning the Kentucky Derby before I'd wager on Saddam returning to a position of power or threat. If our presence there is to spread democracy in the Middle East, there's an increasing suggestion that the results of democracy in the Middle East are not necessarily going to be to our liking. If we're just there to prevent a civil war from breaking out... Well, I'd like more than repeated assurances that, no, what you're seeing on your television is not civil war. I'd like Iraqi security forces to start adhering to their own predictions of readiness. I'd like to know under what conditions we would consider Iraq to be in a state of civil war, and to know what we're prepared to do in the event of such an occurrence (at the very least, accelerate or withdraw?)
quote:We don't need an "anti war" President. But, we do need a competent one.
I wish I believed that, at this point, competence would be enough.
I don't even know if a genius- military, diplomatic, or both- would be enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
List them? Are you serious? Alright.
In addition to lending support to the murderers of our allies, how about constant treaty violations and hedging, such as the shenanigans with the Oil for Food program, an unwillingness to cooperate with the terms that ended the last aggressive war 'Japan' started, and plotting to assassinate a former American president.
I realize that the first and last things on that list amount to tiddliwinks in some people's minds, but not in mine.
As for why we didn't attack other, larger looming threats out there...again, are you serious? You can't think of any reasons on your own? Alright.
North Korea: PRC. Iran, horrible terrain, lack of previous undefeated military, even less international support, more difficult to supply and support. Syria, possibly. Not much of a 'larger, looming threat' though.
----------
fugu,
You're entirely correct that Saddam was not an Islamo-fascist. If I suggested that he was, that was a mistake. He was just a fascist that happened to be Islamic.
Hussein did try to assassinate at least one of his American rivals. That certainly seems to be something to me, doesn't it to you? He was willing to defy us and piss us off when we were right on his freakin' doorstep. You seem to be relying quite a bit on the rationality of a man who thought he could get away with a military takeover of Kuwait, and then who was convinced he could defeat the best military of the First World to keep it.
I don't have much else to disagree with in your posts, really. I too think the war was justified, but not for the reasons given. All I am trying to suggest is that the reasons given weren't all garbage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn,
List them? Are you serious? Alright.
In addition to lending support to the murderers of our allies, how about constant treaty violations and hedging, such as the shenanigans with the Oil for Food program, an unwillingness to cooperate with the terms that ended the last aggressive war 'Japan' started, and plotting to assassinate a former American president.
I realize that the first and last things on that list amount to tiddliwinks in some people's minds, but not in mine.
As for why we didn't attack other, larger looming threats out there...again, are you serious? You can't think of any reasons on your own? Alright.
North Korea: PRC. Iran, horrible terrain, lack of previous undefeated military, even less international support, more difficult to supply and support. Syria, possibly. Not much of a 'larger, looming threat' though.
So YOUR bright idea then, is to bog us down in a war that weakens, not strengthens our overall world position, all for the sake of revenge, and helping out an ally that quite frankly doesn't need our help, and provides little or no TANGIBLE help to that ally. Good stuff.
He's violating international law you get the world together to act, and be realistic about it, not some sham of a couple weeks before you go in after a half assed PR stunt.
And I'm sorry but PLOTTING to attempt to kill ANYONE isn't cause to launch our nation headlong into a war. If they'd actually tried, or actually succeeded, then you've got something. Otherwise I don't think Bush's honor is worth the death of thousands of American soldiers. But even if it was, so what? Get Saddam, kidnap him, capture him, do a targeted strike to kill him.
You talk as if we had no choice but to go to war. This war was very much a choice, a BAD choice. There was no pressing need, there was nothing that forced our hands other than the President's incompetence. Obviously we aren't going to attack the PRC or NK, they actually would fight back. I disagree that Iran would be a real problem. Certainly they'd be a bigger problem than Iraq, but their military would be decimated in a week between targeted airstrikes and our tank divisions.
I think your reasons to go to war at the speed with which we did are severely lacking, beyond all reason. You don't jump to war under false pretenses, a couple checks to widows and orphans, plots to attempt to kills former Presidents, or the abuse of the oil for food program.
Even if war was inevitable, which it wasn't, going in without even a basic understanding of the religious and political situation is irresponsible and grossly negligent. Going in with minimal allied support is the same, going in without enough men is as well.
We could have used post 9/11 sympathy and credibility to actually accomplish positive change in the world. From gathering world support to stop Iran, to creating a workable solution to the Palestine/Israel problem. But we wasted it on Iraq, and now no one cares to help us. Civil War is breaking out, in the most dangerous, lawless nation in the Middle East, and our troops are stuck in the middle of it. If we leave we're screwed, if we stay, we're screwed.
I think you're fooling yourself if you think this war was a good idea. And I should add, that even if we were justified in going to war, that still doesn't mean it's a good idea. When there's an ant infestation in your front yard, you might have reason to attack it, but it doesn't mean it's always the best idea, especially when there's a wasp's nest right next door.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:He's violating international law you get the world together to act,
I think we're nowhere near the point where we can expect the "world" to act like one in any given situation. Europe is still as devided as ever, and it's pretty hard to make Russia, China and the US agree on anything. Sometimes being the greatest superpower does have its benefits.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said we had to wait for the UN to act as a body. God knows we'd be waiting forever. Even NATO forces would have sufficed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
You know, I give up. This conversation is getting quite lengthy anyway and it's one I've had many times before here in particular. But I will say it's a bit tiresome to have you criticize each individual point and say, "That wasn't enough of a reason to go to war!" when although I said I personally believe it was, I do not think we should have gone to war over that alone.
Cumulative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even cumulatively I don't think it's enough, that satisfy you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I already knew that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I hope that the results of this war will teach us that we need to significantly raise our standard for what is "cumulatively" necessary to justify future wars.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not just that I think this war wasn't justified, it's that I think this war has put us in such a state of extreme vulnerability, as to make he who started the whole thing grossly negligent in his duties to protect this nation.
Anyone who thinks we're in a better, or safer world position today than when we started the war is fooling themselves.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)